Sex Ed, PD style

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One thing that may make consent even harder to spot is that people can be in two minds about something, especially sex. When you want sex but don't want to want sex how is the other supposed to read that? (the correct answer, ofcourse, is 'he/she is confused, that counts as a not now')

Part of the problem is that consent shouldn't be something you "spot". You don't need to read someone's nonverbal cues for consent; that's what we have language for.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One thing that may make consent even harder to spot is that people can be in two minds about something, especially sex. When you want sex but don't want to want sex how is the other supposed to read that? (the correct answer, ofcourse, is 'he/she is confused, that counts as a not now')

Or 'ask'.

In other words, this. 

[Reginald Ret]

Hah! agreed.
Not everyone is good at the whole talking thing though, i prefer to improve both skillsets.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hah! agreed.
Not everyone is good at the whole talking thing though, i prefer to improve both skillsets.

You don't have to be good at talking. All you have to be capable of is grunting out "this OK?" before sticking your hand down her pants.

Ideally, yeah, everyone should be pretty skilled at reading body language and be able to tell whether someone is totally into it, or is going along reluctantly. But assuming you're reading it right, especially the first time, is no replacement for a verbal check-in. For anyone who thinks that's contrived, I don't think I've ever had a guy NOT verbally check in, except for when they were raping me. For that matter, the first few times with a guy, I usually ask whether what I'm doing to them is OK. Because it's better to know than to guess.

[Reginald Ret]

Hah! agreed.
Not everyone is good at the whole talking thing though, i prefer to improve both skillsets.

You don't have to be good at talking. All you have to be capable of is grunting out "this OK?" before sticking your hand down her pants.

Ideally, yeah, everyone should be pretty skilled at reading body language and be able to tell whether someone is totally into it, or is going along reluctantly. But assuming you're reading it right, especially the first time, is no replacement for a verbal check-in. For anyone who thinks that's contrived, I don't think I've ever had a guy NOT verbally check in, except for when they were raping me. For that matter, the first few times with a guy, I usually ask whether what I'm doing to them is OK. Because it's better to know than to guess.

You make a very important point that should definitely be in the PD Sex Ed handbook.

[The Wizard Joseph]

This turned out to be an interesting and complex little thread!
Posting to keep posted.
Will dispense thoughts as they reach proper fermentation, probably later tonight.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Society is already inherently male positive.

Well, yes and no.  It's inherently male positive so long as men act in accordance with patriarchical values.

One of the most interesting areas of feminist thinking, to me, is how patriarchical societies constrain men as well as they do women, and I strongly suspect if there was a greater focus on this, it would get a lot of guys who might otherwise be not so interested in feminism thinking about how such things impact on them personally.

Cain makes an excellent point, one that BH, the Master Of Squick made a new thread for, but I'm all "PLEDGE!" on that guy. I still want a discussion on how Patriarchy constrains men, so shall we move it back to this thread, or the one on Rape Culture? Or shall we start again on the topic with a new thread that doesn't have BH as the OP, so we can have a discussion about it that doesn't make us all feel creeped out?

Ideas? Suggestions?

[Juana]

New thread. Worth exploring sans Squick Master and threadjack.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Cool!